>The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, There was no hyperbole there. It was at best clickbait. I would accept clickbait; but my default

>The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, There was no hyperbole there. It was at best clickbait. I would accept clickbait; but my default understanding on that article is that they are proposing the end of pensions. >Though, I would argue, it would also literally destroy pension funds, but as a more distant effect of causing them to be perceived as not delivering value, but that's entirely outside the focus.) Pensions are pyramid schemes. It's a valid argument to be made. The author for sure is going down that route.